GUTH Venus

The whole truth regarding the discovery of ~"GUTH Venus"~

As of December 2000, the present data base that's entirely sponsored by and upheld/moderated by greater NASA, as that which has been further supporting subsequent research and definitions such as those pertaining to the planet Venus, have been woefully incomplete and simply lacking proper review for the past 13 years and counting. The opposition to this discovery of other life existing on Venus is clearly ulterior (cold-war) motive based and it's been officially intent upon suppressing the "truth", and you'd think if anyone can pull this one off, it's the likes of our NASA/NSA/DoD, as they've had plenty of practice for the past 35+ years.

The following two images are those representative of Venus, as true to life as to SAR imaging standards as well as to the best of our observation technology and interpretations thereof. Even though this is about as good as observational truth comes, NASA and their supportive gallery of braille image interpreters and damage control moles have been striking out in all directions, sort of bashing about, hoping to inflict whatever damage that will sufficiently suppress this discovery. Will, 12 months and ongoing damage control has only substantiated my points all the more, that we have a situation festering within NASA and their closest partners in crime NSA/DoD.

Left image is representative of the Magellan original, the right hand image is a 1:1 extract (unmodified). Selecting the right hand image enables a 5X resampling (enlargement).

My identification of multiple complex structures providing a healthy lattice of infrastructure suggest the most likely contention that intelligent life once existed and may in fact remain on Venus. In my ongoing research for potential contradictions to these possibilities, I have found none that apply.

The atmospheric data, as that pertaining specifically to elevated territories as well as the extended (2900 hour) nighttime periods has been revised so as to include the possibility of sustaining adequate life within specific parameters of elevation and nighttime. Environment (much with regard to temperature) as that currently documented as existing at elevations above 5km and during nighttime periods is so incomplete and otherwise not sufficiently defined by NASA records, so much so that not one critic of my discovery can stipulate otherwise without having to expose their motives. Critical evaluations are welcome as long as there is something more then motive at stake. Quoting phrases from the bible of NASA is no longer good enough, as to eliminate these artificial items from existing on Venus.

Ulterior motives are simply the only remaining barrier to the "GUTH Venus" discovery, as any scientific basis for denouncing my discovery has simply not been established, that which offers one single supportive image on behalf of what my critics claim, and that pathetic claim is stating there is no discovery whatsoever, merely because the formations are purely natural and exactly the same as all other areas of Venus (this response is simply not the least bit true) and, otherwise to be stating that what is to be seen is simply too big (how size has any relevance to geometric forms and patterns of artificial nature, other then of micro-organisms which are clearly not at issue) as well as my critics stating that it is impossible to exist in any environment that is too hot and acidic (for this to be true there is simply insufficient information as pertaining to elevated/nighttime environments that would conclusively exclude evolved life). Otherwise, my critics, which initially includes NASA, have been woefully unable and/or incapable over the past year to deliver upon one single image (from any planet, including Earth) that supports and thereby demonstrates such complex formations and rational looking infrastructure as being purely of natural formations. Thereby, that leaves but motives, including the obvious protection towards those Apollo missions, upon which I have been equally challenging the very same standards in exchange for the manner by which others have been placing this same burden of proof upon my Venus discovery (seems I've hit a sour cord with my insistence that others must equally perform proof based upon their records, so as to uphold the very same "extraordinary" standards).

Unfortunately for all those pro-NASA Apollo supporters, their conventional photographic documentation which involves highly questionable lunar landscape imaging, that which can not otherwise be supported by the best of my technical photographic means and experience and, without access to those original negatives is pretty much pointless because, so much can so easily be altered and then not so easily detectable without having those originals and, NASA most certainly had the ultimate cold-war motivation as well as the technology and financial means by which to accomplish such photographic's in order to suite the mission goal, which may have had little if anything to do with actually walking on the moon. I've researched this issue to some extent and, I've have tried to locate supportive documentation that could substitute for those original negatives and film footage of the 1/6th scaled weight lunar lander test flights. In spite of having a standing promise to post answers and whatever other facts directly from my URL, after 12 months even I've come up empty, including all others (mostly still my critics), just as the thousands of other Apollo critics have for the past 30+ years.

How and why is it even possible that NASA can not sufficiently answer some fundamental questions and, thereby support their claim by delivering a few of those original negatives? Perhaps some of these motives can be addressed in my Lunar Review: the ultimate RUSE. I only wish I was as good at writing what I now believe has been going on, as others managing their URL documents seem to have a greater capability or ability at achieving such documentation polish, at least they seem to deliver a better looking document format that includes their photographic examples.

The attached/associated documentation further illustrates and reviews the potential of these considerable structural attributes, that which includes roadbeds, causeways, quarry sites, a bridge, multiple housing, fluid containments, massive reservoirs and substantial air transport capabilities.

GUTH Venus is simply not any conjecture, it is as real and as clearly seen within sufficiently certified exploration enlargements of NSA grade SAR imaging, and otherwise further supported by rational peer review.

Two other lessor sights (potentially supporting life) have recently been located as situated at 180 degrees from the primary site and, where those also have been equally if not more so elevated then GUTH Venus #1. Additional sites are likely to exist near far greater elevations such as the Istar Terra continent (however, the Magellan altitude for mapping this area was simply too high for resolving similar formations such as those at "GUTH Venus #1). The 180° consideration fits well within the criteria of those surviving, that they must travel to the sunset protection of the alternate accommodations and, for all this to happen with sufficient capability, the massive hydrogen filled airship(perhaps powered by hydrogen peroxide and alcohol, though morst likely by H2O2/C12H26 or simply CO/O2) could be the elected mode of transport.